Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Herizons Montrose National Organization for Women, Vol. 7, No. 6, August 1981
Page 3
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Herizons Montrose National Organization for Women, Vol. 7, No. 6, August 1981 - Page 3. August 1981. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. September 22, 2021. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/1126/show/1122.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(August 1981). Herizons Montrose National Organization for Women, Vol. 7, No. 6, August 1981 - Page 3. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/1126/show/1122

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Herizons Montrose National Organization for Women, Vol. 7, No. 6, August 1981 - Page 3, August 1981, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed September 22, 2021, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/1126/show/1122.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Herizons Montrose National Organization for Women, Vol. 7, No. 6, August 1981
Publisher Montrose Area National Organization for Women
Date August 1981
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women--Texas--Periodicals
  • Women--Texas--Houston--Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
  • Newsletters
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
Original Item Location HQ1101 .H47
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b1476034~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
Use and Reproduction Educational use only, no other permissions given. Copyright to this resource is held by the content creator, author, artist or other entity, and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the copyright owner. For more information please see UH Digital Library Fair Use policy on the UH Digital Library About page.
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Page 3
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name femin_201109_205c.jpg
Transcript NATIONAL DEFENSE—AN UNMODEST PROPOSAL by Lynne Mutchler Consider this: First, we need a freeze on nuclear weapons. Second, we must not allow the U.S. to launch a first strike. Third, until there is a nuclear disarmament, this country must maintain the ability to launch a devastating retaliatory attack in order to deter those who might otherwise be tempted to launch a first strike against us. If you agree with the above, you might logically continue and assert that our country should have certain kinds of weapons rather than others. For example, rather than a few large submarines, many small submarines would be employed so that any agressor could be certain that some would survive a first strike and be capable of retaliation. This may come as a shock to my pacifist friends, but I agree with the three statements above, although I am still in the process of considering the problem. I do know that we can not refuse to consider defense priorities. We must defend ourselves, to maintain peace by dealing from strength. Weapons are neither intrinsically bad or good, and I know we need some weapons. Thus, the important question becomes: which weapons? And the corollary is: how much should we pay for them? Although I am now convinced that I need to pay more attention to weapons, I am unwilling to get into the details, without a lot of help. I have just learned ("The Washington Monthly," May 1982, pp 41-44, and July/August 1982, p.4) about a woman named DINA RASOR, who had directed a Project on Military Procurement for something called the National Taxpayers Legal Fund. She now works along the same lines, for herself. The article in the May "Washington Monthly" tells how she was fired by the Fund for being too effective.(by Jonathan Alter, the article is titled, "Misfire: How Pentagon Critics Shot Down Their Own Ace."). Rasor took the tack that the Pentagon should be held accountable for producing efficient, effective weapons that do what they are supposed to do—weapons that work. She became a conduit for workers in the defense machine with specific knowledge of cost overruns, design flaws, non-use of a superior design because of unfair competition. She supplied documentation to the papers on the failure of the M-l tank, among others. The Washington Monthly" says, "she is considered not only well informed and intelligent, but a clear talker, which is an especially valued commodity in the arcane world of military hardware. Rasor was fired by the board of the NTLF, for questioning:"why build new M-l tanks when existing M-60's are only half as expensive?f...Why return to C-5 transports when Boeing 747s are available for a fraction of the cost?" The people who fired her wanted instead to challenge underlying attitudes of the Pentagon brass., I believe we need both—we need to challenge the Pentagon on what weapons are needed, but we also need to examine the weapons they have chosen, and force them to do a good job of what they create. My feelings on this issue were so strongly affected by this article in WM, that I want to quote the last two paragraphs: "Preventing the destruction of the world will always grip the public imagination more firmly than an analysis of what is wrong with a tank's hydraulic system. But without denigrating the genuine accomplishments of the nuclear freeze movement, it is important to recognize that sometimes thinking about big abstract issues can distract us from thinking about smaller (though multibillion-dollar) problems for which real solutions are more within reach. For all of its consciousness-raising promise, the freeze movement runs the risk of thrusting people into that old mind trap, where war is bad, peace is good, and the details are to be worked out later. This thinking, while containing a certain logic when applied to nuclear weapons, is disastrous for any effort to do something constructive about the rest of military...until enough people decide to play (^Dina Rasor's role} > the liberals, the libertarians, and everyone else will continue to waste billions of dollars on a military that benefits no one." I believe feminists are concerned with the defense of the country, but we sure are not willing to trust that President Reagan has asked a reasonable amount of money for it. Clearly we need both guns and butter, but I refuse to pay an inordinate amount for the guns. We feminists have to impact the Pentagon and the White House with our priorities. Dina Rasor has made a start—at least we need to make the military executives honest. Thank you Dina Rasor.